SquirtleI’m pro-choice, but using the 14th amendment to establish that abortion is a constitutional right is a bit of a stretch. If you are unsure of what Roe v Wade says, that was the ruling. Roe v Wade getting overturned was eventually bound to happen. If you put your bias and opinion aside and look at it from a purely legal point of view, the overturn makes sense.
Something I noticed that a lot of people don’t seem to get; the SCOTUS’s job isn’t to make laws as they please. Their job is to interpret the law as written from a legal perspective. They are supposed to be apolitical; however, obviously, they are humans with opinions and biases, so it’s not a perfect system.
If we really want abortion to be a constitutional right, we need congress to pass legislation making it so. They have had 50 years to do just that, and it hasn’t happened. We really shouldn’t be trying to stretch amendments and ambiguous wording in the constitution to fit our political goals.
SCOTUS' job is to interpret the law as they please. The reality is that SCOTUS is not apolitical, nor impartial, it's very biased, and just another political tool leveraged to push an agenda. If you think otherwise, you're just naive. Almost all of the important rulings are party-line votes, that's just a fact.
Virtually all cases on the docket have 2 strong opposing arguments (wouldn't make it to SCOTUS otherwise), and so they can justifiably rule pretty much either way, it's up to their personal interpretation of the spirit of the law, so it really all comes down to the majority bias on the court (religious, political, personal).
Roe wasn't that much of a stretch, plenty of similar rulings for a bunch of other rights, none of which are actually mentioned in the constitution. With terms as loosely defined as 'liberty', it's just a matter of who you ask what should or should not be protected by the constitution, and SCOTUS will keep overturning itself and changing its mind depending on which way the wind is blowing.
